Village of Milford v. K-H Holding Corporation, a Foreign Corporation Trw, Inc., a Foreign Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff could recover from the defendant the costs of identifying it as a PRP
• explaining that the court has “never held” that the short-term nature of an action is required for finding costs recoverable as removal costs
• observing that CERCLA costs may include “such actions as may be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances” (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23)
• “Monitoring and evaluation costs may be recovered as ‘removal’ costs under CERCLA if they were reasonable, and the activities were not scientifically deficient or unduly costly.”
• listing as a policy concern associated with statutes of limitation the “elimination of ‘stale’ claims in which evidence is likely to have been forgotten or destroyed”
• further migration of pollutants released before the statutory period, without further acts by the defendant, does not constitute an additional tort or a continuing trespass

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).